Catholicism and Homosexual Marriage (Part 2)

We left off in the middle of three articles which appeared in three different newspapers in response to the pope mosexual marriage. Despite seeming friendly toward the LGBTQ cause, he has now declared that priests cannot bless same-sex unions. Laura Washington, writing in the Chicago Sun Times wants the world to know that she is shocked and disheartened by the March 19th pronouncement. On March 20th, she wrote that she had spoken with a homosexual male, who is a former Catholic. His comments concerning the pope were:

I thought he was on the path of healing the Church and embracing the LGBTQ community. This new creed is archaic, and a step way, way back, a step backwards from where he was taking the church. I didn’t leave the church because I was gay. I left because I didn’t believe in their philosophy of hate.

Why is it that, when a philosophy approaches the thinking of the Scriptures that it is a step backward? How about if we look at the reality of the matter? Any kind of thinking that disagrees with the Scriptures is a step away from the truth. Has this guy ever asked himself why there was a worldwide Flood? Was the reason that people were following God or stepping away from God? While we’re at it, has he ever asked himself why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed?

Now we come to the new definition of hate—not to mention hate speech. Hatred in today’s world occurs when someone disagrees with me. People hate when they say that whatever I want to do is wrong—no matter how perverted it is. When people agree with me, then they are interested in healing; they have an irenic spirit. When they don’t agree with me, then they are divisive—and something should be done about them! They should not be allowed to express themselves if all they are going to do is promulgate hatred.

Yes, it is a philosophy of hate if someone stands where the Scriptures stand. If we advocate a pro-life stance based on Luke 1:41, 44 and 2:12, 16, then we hate those who have abortions (so they tell us). If we, like Paul the apostle, call homosexuality a sin, then we hate all homosexuals (they insist). Well, here’s a newsflash. Jesus identified certain behaviors as sin: evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies (Matt. 15:19-20). He also taught the people that they could not “love” just anyone they desired. They could not just divorce and remarry for any reason (Matt. 19:3-9).

So, then Jesus took giant steps backwards instead of trying to heal people—and He must hate all fornicators, all thieves, all who have divorces, all who have had abortions, as well as homosexuals. How dare He say, “…unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). To cast Jesus in this light is just the logical conclusion of what people like Modesto Tico Valle (the homosexual in Laura Washington’s article) think.

A slight fallacy can be seen in what Valle said. Jesus felt such compassion concerning what sin does to people that He died on the cross so that people could have forgiveness of those sins (John 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:3-4). The Scriptures teach that He expressed love for us in that He died for us while we were yet sinners (Rom. 5:8). His goal was to free us from the domination of sin in our lives as well as the penalty that sin deserves.

Now, would Valle agree with these few observations about Jesus—or insist that He was guilty of hate speech? Most people know that God hates sin. God is holy and can only fellowship those who are holy (1 Peter 1:14-16). All people are free to partake of Jesus’ love and His sacrifice—if there is a willingness to give up the sin(s) they are engaged in. Repentance is not optional (Luke 13:3). The thief must quit stealing; the adulterer must quit his extra-marital affair; and the homosexual must cease his chosen sexual behavior.

Now if Jesus can hate sin, but love and die for the sinner, then His followers should be able to likewise condemn sin but be able to love the sinner. Some say Christians who do so are hypocritical and full of hate, but such is clearly not the case. Jesus proved it was possible to do both.

A “conservative” (the reader can decide this for himself) theologian at Catholic University said that Francis was “shocking progressives by affirming the church’s teaching that sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man and one woman is contrary to the good of human dignity.” Is it important to this “conservative” what “progressives” think? The reader, when he reads progressives with respect to religion, should immediately think of digressives. What they call “progress” is actually a movement away from what the Scriptures teach, which is never progress. What the pope or the Catholic Church teaches, however, is irrelevant. It is Jesus who taught one woman and one man for life (Matt. 19:3-9; Gen. 2:18-24).

After having taken this stance, the Catholic Church immediately contradicted itself. They “called on priests to welcome those with ‘homosexual inclinations’ with respect and sensitivity,” saying that homosexuals could still be blessed by the church if they show “the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching.” What does that mean? It seems to mean that they are not practicing homosexuals. If so, this idea agrees with the Scriptures. Paul taught that the church can not fellowship anyone who engages in sin on a continual basis. Fellowship must be withdrawn from the person that continually lives in and practices sin (1 Cor. 5:12-13).

The Third Letter

The third letter was also a quick reaction to the decision made in the Vatican, and was published on March 20th. This one was written by Patrick T. Reardon, a former member of the Pastoral Council of the Archdiocese of Chicago. He jumps in with a word of protest: “Well, Pope Francis, I disagree.” Of course, we are not Catholic and do not believe in the office of pope (since it is not in the New Testament), but this protest by a Catholic is laughable. One can imagine the pope saying in response, “And who are you?” On what basis does this guy think he can challenge the one he believes is the head of the church?

He claims that the position taken on Monday “about the sinfulness of homosexuality is just plain wrongheaded.” Really? Even though the Bible condemns homosexuality prior to the Law of Moses, under that Law, and as part of New Testament Christianity? Patrick, you’re not just picking on the pope (who heads your religion), you are saying that the Bible Itself is “wrongheaded.” What theological degree do you have that makes you smarter than God? It is not wrongheaded to call sin sin.

Next, he affirms “love is love.” Is that true if it’s a man and two women (provided both women agree)? Is it true if it’s a 35-year-old male and a 15-year-old girl? Or a 14-year-old male and a 27-year-old teacher? Or a 45-year-old male and a 12-year-old male? Can we say in a blasé way of all of these that “love is love”?

Next, he pulls out the Jay Leno argument of, “Who is harmed?” if two men and two women want to marry. That is not the right question. The appropriate query to ask is, “Does God authorize this union?” He is the Creator, and He knows what works best—what is good and what is harmful. Man, left to his own devices, usually gets it wrong. And how does Patrick know if Sodom did not start out the same way?

Patrick goes on to say he is a lifelong Catholic, but he realizes that “the church can twist itself into pretzel shapes on moral questions.” What, therefore, is sinful about “two people in love”? The answer is that God only authorizes certain people to be together. Take, for example, the man whose wife is in a nursing facility with Alzheimer’s. She may be there two years or so, and there’s a widow woman down the street who has been very helpful and is quite drawn to him. Shazam! They are in love. Why can’t they be together? The answer is the same; God has not authorized them to be together. Or what about the man who is stationed in Afghanistan for more than a year? His wife has temporarily found another man, and love is love.

Then he compares the situation to war. The normal philosophy is not to kill, but in a war it is okay, says the Church. So, why can’t the policy be changed on homosexuality? Hmm. What war are we in that would demand that practice? Patrick adds that no one is killed or maimed as a result of permitting homosexual marriages. How does he know that? Even a willing person might be psychologically damaged. And who knows how others will be affected?

The next argument is that people do not choose to be homosexuals. Do they choose to be philanderers? Of course, it was fiction, but on an episode of Law and Order SVU a criminal begged to be put to death because he could not help molesting boys. Can pedophiles not help it, either? Where does this line of reasoning end? Can someone not help being a mass murderer? This argument disagrees with the Scriptures. Paul said of the Corinthians, “Such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:11). Former homosexuals had repented.

God made one male and one female. No, homosexuality is not the same as being short or tall or black or white, because, unlike those characteristics, a person can change his behavior. Some who have been quite promiscuous in their youth have become monogamous—and vice versa. Some have changed from male-female relationships to female-female or male-male even though four children were part of the original union. Some have changed from same-sex relationships to hetero and then had children, and some have become bisexual. These are choices an individual makes.

Patrick does point out that last year Francis said that homosexuals are “children of God and have a right to a family.” He was wrong if he was referring to practicing homosexuals. Maybe this new decree clarifies that. One thing is certain: Patrick should not try his hand at explaining the Scriptures. He closes by saying:

The First Epistle of John (1 John 4:16) tells us: “God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” That, to my mind, is another way of saying: Love is love.

Yikes! This is an awful interpretation. First of all, the passage has nothing to do with sexual expression, sin, or families. Second, the passage contrasts the one who loves God and the one who does not. Third, who is the one who loves God and abides in Him? He is one who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God (v. 15). He is not one who hates his brother—but rather loves him (verses 20-21).

In 2 John 6, the same apostle defines the subject: “And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments….” A person might make a thousand arguments, but the fact is that a homosexual is not walking according to God’s commandments (Rom. 1:26-28). The sexually immoral “shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:8).

The pope may issue another statement to clarify this one and move back in another direction. We cannot say, and will not attempt to take a guess. But nothing he says or does will affect what the Scriptures teach. They will remain the way they have been for two thousand years, when the last author put down his pen and the New Testament became complete.